THE ENRON-ANDERSEN REGULATORY REVIEW TO STRENGTHEN AUDITOR INDEPENDENCE
Abstract
ABSTRACT
The crash of Enron in the US, followed by the worldwide collapse of its auditor, Arthur Andersen (Andersen), has shaken the business world. It was the biggest corporate collapse uncovered in business history. Since then, the investor and public’s perception towards the accounting and auditing profession has been badly tarred. Following Enron-Andersen scandal, giant companies like WorldCom, Xerox and WasteManagement faced similar fate. Worst still, the auditors of all these companies are among the Big Fives (now Big Fours). Nevertheless, the reputation of most certified public accountant (CPA) firms are seriously confronting the problems of regaining public’s confidence at post-Enron era. Among major issues elevated was ‘auditor independence’ of the CPA firms. Arguments rest on the issues of auditor independence and factors like regulatory framework, and business pressures (also corporate governance) that are found to be major contributor to crashes of Enron like. In response to the scandal, the standard-setters, regulators, professions and other related bodies (in the UK and the US) emerged with constructive proposals, which aim to strengthen auditor independence (and corporate accountability). Though, new regulatory have been laid out, the success rate is yet proven. This paper review holds the regulatory scenario depicted in the UK and the US. This is after considering that most of the recent bankrupt cases and regulatory reviews are actively performed in both countries.
References
AICPA ‘Summary of Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002’. Online. Available at: http://www.aicpa.org/info/sarbanes_oxley_summary.htm (accessed 2nd November 2002).
Arrunada, B. (2000) ‘Audit Quality: Attributes, Private Safeguards and the Role of Regulation’, The European Accounting Review, 9 (2): 205-224.
CGAA (Co-ordinating Group on Audit and Accounting Issues) (2002) ‘ Interim Report to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and the Chancellor of the Exchequer’, July, Crown Copyright.
Consumer Federation of America ‘Investor Protection Lessons from the Enron Collapse and an Agenda for Reform’. Online. Available at http://www.consumerfed.org/enron_auditor_rpt.pdf (accessed 15th August 2002).
Geiger, M.A. and Raghunandan, K. (2002) ‘Auditor Tenure and Audit Reporting Failures’, Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory, 21 (1): 67-78.
Gietzmann, M.B. and Sen, P.K. (2002) ‘Improving Auditor Independence Through Selective Mandatory Rotation’, International Journal of Auditing, 6 (2): 183-210.
Securities and Exchange Commission ‘Final Rule: Revision of the Commission’s Auditor Independence Requirements’. Online. Available at: http://www.sec.gov/rules/final/33-7919/htm (accessed 10th July 2002).
Sherer, M. and Turley, S. (1997) Current Issues in Auditing, third edition, London: Sage Publications.
Stevenson, J.E. (2002) ‘Auditor Independence: A Comparative Descriptive Study of the UK, France and Italy’, International Journal of Auditing, 6: 155-182.
Texas Society of Certified Public Accountants ‘Proposed Reforms Survey May 2002’. Online. Available at: http://www.tscpa.org/members/Reform Survey Handouts. Pdf (accessed 3rd November 2002).
The Cato Institute ‘The Push for Auditor Independence’. Online. Available at: http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv24n4/v24n4-3.pdf (accessed 2nd October 2002).
Van Der Plaats, E. (2000) ‘Regulating Auditor Independence’, The European Accounting Review, 9 (4): 625-638.
